It happens every time.
Maybe Trump is just doing this for show?

They have had tiny devices you stick into your skin for a few years now. They are expensive, and a PITA. If they fall out, you have to throw them away. You cannot get them wet. You cannot go swimming with the devices. You have to be very careful when bathing.

So is this something you wear like as watch? I don't see how. I think it would need to test your blood.

So how is this new? How is this "wearable?"

I've often wondered if remote screening would put an end to this.

Imagine a paid service where the company serves as your window into the internet and composes your HTML and sends it to you as an image displayed by their app. You could magnify or smallify the image as needed, and the app would send mouse and keyboard events back to the company to be forwarded on your behalf.

It's not a fully formed idea, you would also need to package and send audio, deal with credit card payments, and so on, but for people with fast internet access this might be a doable solution.

(Of note: it's like a VPN, but the HTML compositing on the remote computer is an additional layer. A VPN service could randomize the output portal per session, but that's already a feature of VPNs.)

An advantage of this is that almost all the system configuration fingerprinting would be inaccessible to the wider world, if a breech happens none of your private files are available on the remote computer to be stolen, and a number of security guardrails could be implemented, such as ensuring that mouse events are short, keypress events contain only keypress information, only image information is displayed, and so on

A sophisticated client system might even incorporate multiple user identities per client user, keyed to a specific website. Your internet facing information could be different when visiting Amazon.com, as compared to WalMart.com.

VPNs aren't that expensive, and they're used by people who want the value of an extra level of security.

For most web browsing, this might be an extra level of anonymity for people who would value that extra level.

Again, if you think the artists don't use AI, it's because they didn't tell you.

A good example here is "I'm stuck, what rimes with x" that is a stereotypical writer block for song writers. Do you know what easily solves that problem?

LLM trained for it. I.e. Suno.ai.

Song writers writing a specific tune that just doesn't sound right that want to iterate on several close variants to determine what would sound better. Do you know what does this quickly? Suno.ai.

Again, the artists probably could, as we say it here, "climb up the tree ass first" and do this themselves. It will take them thousands to tens of thousands of times longer to solve the problem at hand than AI would solve it. But they could do it by hand.

But successful people are always starved for time. So they take every tool that will let them have a significant amount of extra time. AI is currently by far the most important tool in this category.

Another fun part: this has been studied. You're wrong on both accounts. People don't actually care (and often prefer) AI music, as long as they're not told it's AI music. I.e. telling them generates a nocebo effect.

And young generations are very much positive on AI music. They form a decent bulk of people who ask the likes of suno.ai make it for them. It's just that most of this music is something like "take this song that sounds cool, and make it more like this, because I like it more if it was like this". Sing with girlfriend's/boyfriends/crush's voice, etc.

Fun part: you can tell properly trained AI to give generated piece "a sense of the personality and mood of the specific performer". Today, 4/5 times it will be successful in doing so, provided it had enough of performer's works to learn from.

At this point, there are two kinds of successful artists.

Those that tell you that they use AI to assist with their craft, and those that lie about it.

Because the amount of extra work that needs to be done to without AI is ridiculous at this point. Add to this the part where AI provides several unique services that humans cannot deliver in time frames that aren't thousands to tens of thousands of times longer, allowing for rapid iteration on concepts that would be impossible otherwise, and today you no longer can be successful without it.

The only difference today is how much of it is used, for what parts, and what specific model.

I think the best term for AI luddites such as yourself is "AI Vegans".

Like vegans, you know a tiny sliver of reality, and make it your whole world. Like vegans, we don't need to know you're like this, because you'll tell us. Like vegans, you're wrong on almost everything. Like vegans, you believe your faith makes you a higher form of being, and those who disagree just "are lesser" i.e. "do not understand math".

Like vegans, you'll mostly go away in a decade or two.

It's actually the opposite. It was stagnant between 1960s and early 2000s. Where we thought we'd need to program it, because we were modelling it on ourselves even back then, and back then we thought brain was biologically fully pre-programmed.

Then fMRI brain imaging came, we understood how brain functions, that's it's not pre-programmed but learning from basic LLM-like template and then inferring based on what it learned (remember the "90% of the brain is not used" pre-fMRI myth?), and within a decade, basics of modern AI being "learn and infer" principle became mainstream.

And then they look at alternatives, and conclude "yes, this is in fact by far the best system we've ever had for this purpose".

"It's not perfect" is utopian thinking. What matters is "is this the best system we had so far".

Curious opinion considering that legal profession is mostly applied about logic. You learn the rules, and they you use logic to apply them to each situation.

Of course we do. We literally modeled current gen AI on it.

In fact, we even know that LLMs overwhelmingly struggle learning where humans struggle as well. Because it's the same process.

The only difference is that we are embodied and spend decades learning, while they have far more compute and memory and are able to learn in days. Each grants us slightly different advantages and disadvantages within the learning process.

Which is fundamentally the same process.

It is literally learning though. It's a neural network modeled on human brain, learning in the same way human brain does.

You going "lalalala, can't hear you" isn't changing reality. It's still learning.

No, their argument is "because Democrat bias".

I don't want my tax money going to politicized institutions, period. I don't want my tax money supporting one side *or* the other, government support should be politically neutral.

The airwaves are a public resource, the government is supposed to manage that resource for the public good.

"One sided" is not the public good. About half the country is conservative, there used to be rules about political bias, it was abolished in 1987, and this has led to the sorry state of affairs we have now.

MSM is unending, incessant propaganda. Rage bait intended to persuade rather than inform.

If it's not going to use the public resource for the public good, then the MSM shouldn't be using that public resource.

(Of note: Fox news is an internet/cable channel, and does not require a broadcast license.)

In EU, most grid operators learned from the mistakes of "let's just let everyone feed grid from unexpected input points all at once, and then stop all at once".

So the offset for feed in tariff is so high that it's basically never profitable to do so.